Wanted immediately: an effective and independent Police Commission

By Malinda Seneviratne

(August 20, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) There are two names I first heard two days ago. Dinesh Tharanga and Danushka Udayakantha Aponsu, aged 26 and 21 respectively. They are dead now. They were killed, allegedly, by a gang of police officers led by T.W. Newton, the Officer in Charge of the Angulana Police. There’s another name I hadn’t heard before: Nipuna Ramanayake. He was abducted and beaten up allegedly by a gang led by one Ravindu Vaas Gunawadenra, the son of SSP Vaas Gunawardena, Director of the Colombo Crime Division.

The OIC of the Angulana Police and six other police officers were transferred and subsequently arrested, why they were not arrested first being of course a relevant question that remains unanswered by the Inspector General of Police. SSP Vaas Gunawardena has also been transferred, presumably to ensure that inquiry into the second incident proceeds without undue interference. The action has been relatively swift, but try telling that to the parents of Dinesh Tharanga, Danushka Aponsu and Nipuna Ramanayake!

There is a thing called ‘law enforcement’ because all societies breed thieves and transgressors who plunder the wealth of the hard-working, law-abiding and infringe on their basic rights for whatever purpose, respectively. The duty of law enforcement authorities is to monitor and protect the law-abiding, and to seek and stop rogue elements. This is what one can reasonably expect from the police. This is not what Dinesh and Danushka got. Today, instead, the protector has turned predator; rogue-elements are in position to facilitate and perpetrate thuggery. Correction: the protector continues to be predator; rogue-elements continue to facilitate and perpetrate thuggery.

The murders in Angulana do not constitute a first. Neither was the attack on Nipuna the first by someone who operated believing that papa’s position gave him the right to perpetrate assault and battery. We have had high ranking police officers partying with known drug-dealers. There is a lot of oiling of palms going on. This is common knowledge.

In September 2003 or thereabouts, the then Bribery Commissioner, Kingsley Wickramasuriya identified the Police Department among the top 12 state institutions in terms of corruption. Corruption, as far as the Police Department goes, refers to the failure to act to prevent theft and other forms of fraud, the perpetration of such acts, and deliberate negligence in enforcing the law. All this is further compounded by the fact that there is an unholy alliance between police officers and politicians who are not given to playing by the rules. It is common knowledge that there is a lot of ‘you scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours’ going on between politician and police officer (and of course police officer and criminal) and that this has been going on for decades.

When protector turns predator, the ordinary citizen is helpless. When protector-turned-predator operates under covering-fire from powerful politicians, I can’t think of a better term to describe the plight of the citizen than ‘f****d!’ I could add, I suppose, ‘twice over’.

All this forces me to reconsider the 17th Amendment, especially its articles pertaining to the Independent Police Commission. I am drawn to Section 155G of the relevant chapter, which lays down the powers of the Commission. The Commission, accordingly, is empowered to devise the regulations governing recruitment criteria, training criteria and improving the independence and efficiency of the police service. The key here is the matter of devising regulations. It implies that such regulations are necessary but are unfortunately absent. The 17th Amendment is not being implemented, we know, and we should continue to suspect that part of the non-implementing is attributable to the fact that it goes against the interests of the politician. If, on the other hand, competent commissioners had been appointed while the 17th Amendment was in force, they would have obtained the services of experts to formulate necessary policies which in turn may very well have prevented the kinds of horrific transgressions we are seeing today or those we have seen in the past 30 years or so.

Ok, so we don’t have the 17th Amendment (flawed as it is). We don’t have anyone offering an alternative model that ensures a healthy degree of insulation for the citizen from the politician and political interference and obtains effective, independent and ethical practices from the public service. We are confronted by a hard constitutional wall, where amendment requires two-third majority and a legislature that is sorely lacking in men and women of principle and integrity. Is all lost?

I believe to admit all is lost is to be irresponsible and moreover an argument that in the final instance boils down to a vulgar readiness to offer silent consent to unconscionable acts of transgression. We could take strength from the fact that there was a time when it was considered silly and illogical to say that the LTTE should be and can be militarily vanquished. The political leadership at that time was convinced this was not possible; it was committed to suing for peace at the cost of territory and much else. Things changed. Things changed because people argued otherwise, cogently and incessantly, and thereby turned public opinion against the then hegemonic view.

This time around, it would be tougher because the ideological fight will be more ‘personal’ from the point of view of the politician. He/she stands to lose at a very personal level; all the more reason for the citizens to expend more energy and exercise more vigilance. Moreover, it calls upon the citizen to be even more circumspect in choice of ally because it would be naïve to expect politician and political party to act against their self-interest.

We could not stop Dinesh Tharanga and Danushka Udayakantha Aponsu from being murdered. We could not stop Nipuna Ramanayake from being assaulted. We may not be able to stop some intoxicated cop from putting a bullet through the head of some person who has crossed his path tomorrow. We may not stop the son of some politician or senior police officer operating as though he is above the law. We have to understand, however, that if we remain silent, neither we nor our children will be safe.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be contacted at malinsene@gmail.com.

-Sri Lanka Guardian